'Alternatives to EfW are still in their infancy'

TECHNOLOGIES that could provide an alternative to building an incinerator in Guernsey have not progressed far enough to be viable. Joe Schwager, of Environment Department-appointed consultant Juniper, said he had been waiting for suitable alternatives to mass-burn incineration - the proposed choice for Guernsey - to emerge but none was suitable.

'I've been looking for 10 years and wish I could give a good-news story,' he said.

'The last 18 months have been a difficult time for processes that focus on residual waste.

'There has been considerable progress in some mechanical areas but not in the methodology for dealing with final waste.'

Mr Schwager said he revisited all the options outlined in the report Juniper compiled for the Board of Administration last April when it put forward its proposals for solving Guernsey's long-term waste problems.

Juniper specialises in assessing new waste-treatment technologies and is widely regarded as the leading independent analyst of a treatment known as pyrolysis and gasification.

The consultants looked at 19 companies that use pyrolysis and gasification and in April 2003 concluded that none was suitable.

'I went back to the report to look at the developments that have been made in the last year.

'I looked at 19 processes that are close to being a solution, out of 200 or so that could have been considered.

'In the intervening period, eight of the 19 have ceased trading or withdrawn from the market. Only two of them have orders and don't want to come here; they are from Japan. Among the technologies that we identified as being closest, one company has just gone out of business and another closed its flagship project.'

The Environment Department said that the latest reports, including one from UK-based consultancy Fichtner, closely supported the Juniper recommendations.

It said there had been no cause to challenge Juniper's original reports.

'At the time of the original Juniper report, there was an expectation in many quarters that the alternative-technology companies would achieve a breakthrough within a period of one to two years.

'Fichtner's report demonstrates that, some two years on, the breakthrough has not been forthcoming,' the department said.

'Once again, members must consider whether or not there is merit in introducing further delay with the optimistic hope that a breakthrough in the alternative technologies is on the horizon, or to enable further reports to be commissioned, again in the optimistic hope that a new report will bring to light issues missed by Juniper and Fichtner.

'Nothing has happened in the alternative-technology market which should lead the States to overturn the previous two decisions taken in 2002 and 2003.'